Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this June will witness the retirement of Richard Shoemaker after an unusually illustrious career in the American labor movement.

He rose from an eighteen-year-old worker at John Deere in Illinois to serve three terms as vice-president of the United Auto Workers.

He rose up the ranks on the basis of his strong talents of mind and spirit. No matter what rung he was on, he never forgot where he started.

The result was an exceptional dedication to work for the well-being of his fellow and sister workers. He was proud that the labor movement, of which he was a vital part, was playing a key role in creating a strong middle class in America, one that gave workers a chance to obtain what many of their parents dreamed for their children to have, and which so many did not possess before the labor movement--a truly decent wage, decent health care, some security for their retirement, and educational opportunity for their children.

That was infused in his work as a President of his local at the age of 27, as an international representative appointed at the age of 30 by Walter Reuther, and in key administrative posts for UAW vice president Steve Yokich and President Owen Bieber.

He was called upon to tackle tough issues. Some years ago it was the effort to resolve a long conflict in labor management relations at Caterpillar.

Greater challenges still lay ahead. The American auto industry is now tackling perhaps the most dramatic challenges in its history. As vice- president of the UAW for GM and Delphi, Dick Shoemaker is in the very center of the storm, using his deep talents, intelligence and experience to work toward answers that can sustain the domestic auto industry that he loves and helped build, while remaining faithful to the workers to whom he has dedicated his life's work.

Dick Shoemaker also learned early on the lesson that what goes on in the public sector and government can vitally affect any efforts and gains obtained in negotiations in the private sector. So he assumed a variety of major political responsibilities on behalf of the Union and in the Democratic Party. During these decades of unusual challenge, commitment, and achievement, Dick has been blessed by a wonderful partner, his wife Mary.

This Thursday, May 25, there will be a dinner held to give full tribute on his retirement to Dick Shoemaker. Mr. Speaker, I speak not only for myself as an admirer and friend, but I know for many, many others who say to Dick Shoemaker--congratulations on an illustrious career leaving its major mark on many yesterdays, and for many tomorrows.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5384, the Fiscal Year 2007 Agriculture Appropriations Act. In particular, I am pleased that funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, or CSFP, has been restored in this bill.

In yet another example of the Administration's upside-down priorities, the President's request proposed eliminating CSFP. Last year, in Michigan alone, almost 76,000 low income seniors, mothers and children received much-needed, nutritious food each month thanks to this funding and the hard work of organizations like Focus: Hope in Detroit.

I thank the Committee for responding to the outpouring of grassroots support for CSFP, and refusing to do away with this important program. The bill before us includes $118.3 million for CSFP, an increase of $11 million from the current level. Following the President's recommendation would have literally taken food from the mouths of seniors and children across the country. I hope our action here not only protects CSFP, but also sends a message to the President that cuts like this are not acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 70th anniversary of the Corp. Neil W. Reid Post 2358 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, created in 1936, and named after Neil W. Reid, the first casualty of World War I from Macomb County.

The Post was formed in 1936 by members of the Post in Mount Clemens who sought to establish a separate post in the Village of Roseville. At its foundation, the Corp. Neil W. Reid was operating out of the old township hall and had 24 members. Shortly after, the Ladies Auxiliary of the Post was chartered, made up of 20 former servicewomen and wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters of veterans.

In 1939, members of the Post received a charter from the Military Order of the Cooties, formed to better the metal attitude of bed-ridden soldiers through hospital visitation and fundraising activities.

By the end of World War II the membership of the Post had grown to 175. This growth was recognized in 1950 when the National Commander of the VFW visited the Post's Home, an honor that few Posts throughout the nation have received.

In 1958, Mildred Mueth, a member of the Ladies Auxiliary of the Post, was elected

President of the organization in the State of Michigan, and one year later, Post member Fred McDaniel was elected to the position of commander in the State of Michigan. McDaniel would go on to coordinate the National Convention of the VFW, held in Detroit in 1960.

The Post continued to grow, and during the 1960's and 1970's expanded and remodeled its Home several times. With the added space, the Post became an important community institution, hosting baby showers, birthday, anniversary, and retirement parties, as well as funeral lunches.

Over the years, the Post has been an important fundraiser for the Roseville Police and Fire Departments, the Roseville Community Schools Scholarship Foundation and has been active in raising money for several other charities as well. The Post has been rewarded with numerous awards for Community Service, Americanism, and Youth Activities, demonstrating its involvement and commitment to the local community.

Today, the Post helps veterans in need of medical care and other assistance, and has been active in providing household goods to soldiers in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Corp. Neil W. Reid, Post 2358, and its Ladies Auxiliary on the occasion of their 70th anniversary. These organizations have been an important and active force in aiding local veterans as well as the community as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of a program that makes an enormous difference in the lives of all our constituents: the Community Development Block Grant, or CDBG, program.

The CDBG program provides direct federal funding to local governments to make needed investments that improve the quality of life in our communities. These funds are used to prevent homelessness, reduce infant deaths, and provide youth enrichment programs. They are used to rehabilitate housing, to reconstruct residential streets, to help fund domestic violence shelters, to provide seniors with snow removal and lawn care assistance, and to fund important economic development initiatives.

The President has again demonstrated that his budget priorities are upside down and out of step with our communities' needs by proposing a 20 percent cut in formula funding to CDBG entitlement communities. But as the distinguished Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee, Representative Obey, has pointed out, just looking at this year's proposal doesn't tell the whole story.

The CDBG program is just one of many important domestic priorities that have been subject to a bizarre pattern in which, year after year, the President proposes draconian cuts, then Congress restores some of the funding and declares victory. However, the effect of this is that after several years, the draconian cuts are imposed. Since 2001, the CDBG program has already been cut by more than 22 percent in real dollars.

Yet the President wants to reduce these vital resources to our local communities even further. According to a Congressional Research Service analysis that I requested, the CDBG entitlement communities in my district would stand to lose $2.25 million next year if the President's proposed funding cuts are adopted.

As bad as these numbers sound, it is important to remember that there are real people behind them. During the April recess, two cities in my district, Warren and Southfield, Michigan, were kind enough to show me the impact that CDBG funds have had in their communities.

They have used these CDBG resources to make a real difference in the lives of countless families. I was particularly impressed by the housing rehabilitation programs that represent the largest CDBG-funded program in both communities. These efforts, along with CDBG-funded investments in local parks and roads, have helped maintain vibrant neighborhoods in both cities. I ask that summaries of these programs be included in the record, but I want to share with my colleagues just one example of the powerful difference that CDBG funds have meant to individual families.

Through its Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program, the City of Warren was able to help Michelle Amburgy and her son. I quote:

Michelle Amburgy is a single mother employed by a catering

service. When her furnace stopped working before Christmas

and she and her son were living without heat, Ms. Amburgy did

not have the resources to purchase a new furnace. She says

she, ``. . . tried everywhere to get money for a furnace. .

.'' and was unable to find a program to help her. Luckily the

application she submitted to the City of Warren for a

rehabilitation loan was being processed and according to her,

``. . . the City put a rush on it . . .'' in order to get a

new furnace so she and her son could have heat. In addition

to the furnace, various other improvements were done to her

home, including an update of the electrical and plumbing

systems which she says

were definitely needed but she, ``. . . never would have been

able to afford on my own''.

I hope that the House will remember Ms. Amburgy and her son, and the thousands of other families touched by the CDBG program when we consider funding for the CDBG program in the coming weeks.

City of Warren Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program--CDBG

The City of Warren has spent over $14,370,000 of the

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding it has

received since 1982 on an owner occupied rehabilitation loan

program, which has assisted over 1,000 households. The low or

deferred interest loans are offered to eligible households

for necessary home improvements, including the correction of

dangerous structural defects and the elimination of unhealthy

living conditions. The program provides households who may

otherwise not be able to improve their homes and living

conditions with a means for doing so. For example, Michelle

Amburgy is a single mother employed by a catering service.

When her furnace stopped working before Christmas and she and

her son were living without heat, Ms. Amburgy did not have

the resources to purchase a new furnace. She says she, ``. .

. tried everywhere to get money for a furnace . . .'' and was

unable to find a program to help her. Luckily the application

she submitted to the City of Warren for a rehabilitation loan

was being processed and according to her, ``. . . the City

put a rush on it . . .'' in order to get a new furnace so she

and her son could have heat. In addition to the furnace,

various other improvements were done to her home, including

an update of the electrical and plumbing systems which she

says were definitely needed but she, ``. . . never would have

been able to afford on my own''.

In order to qualify for the program, the household must

meet the definition of low or moderate income which is

adjusted based upon household size. For instance, the total

income for a household of two would have to be below $27,950

in order to be considered low income. If the household

qualifies as low income, payments on the loan are deferred

and no interest is charged. The total income for a moderate

income household of two would have to be below $44,750. If

the household is determined to be moderate income, monthly

payments on the loan are due at a 4 percent interest rate.

All loan payments and loan payoffs are placed into a

revolving account used to fund future rehabilitation loans.

The rehabilitation loan program not only provides funding

needed to make home repairs, it also provides expertise and

guidance through the home improvement process. The City's

inspectors perform a thorough inspection of the home and

determine all items which must be corrected in order to bring

the home into compliance with current housing codes, which

may include updating electrical, plumbing and heating

systems. This work must be addressed through the program. The

homeowner, in consultation with City staff, may also identify

other items which should be done in order to improve the

condition of the property. This may include the installation

of new windows, roofing, and modest kitchen and bath updates.

The City oversees the preparation of specifications, the bid

process and the actual rehabilitation to ensure that the

appropriate work is being done by qualified individuals.

Arthur and Gloria Huard are a retired couple living in

Warren. Mr. and Mrs. Huard were faced with a leaking roof

that was causing structural damage to a portion of their

home. Mrs. Huard says that she and her husband are living on

a fixed income and, ``. . . didn't have the money to pay . .

.'' for a new roof and the necessary repairs to the home. She

and her husband received a rehabilitation loan from the City

of Warren which funded a roof and repair of the structural

damage. They were also able to have new windows installed and

their bathroom updated, including the replacement of flooring

which had been sinking. Mr. and Mrs. Huard were relieved to

have the work done and she says that they were, ``. . . very

pleased . . .'' with the work and that, ``. . . the men that

worked were very nice and helpful''. Mrs. Huard says that the

pension and social security they receive must go to pay

medical bills for her ailing husband and she's relieved that

the loan funds do not have to be repaid to the City until

they sell their home because they are retired senior

citizens.

Many different types of households are assisted with the

City of Warren's CDBG funded loan program. Of the 62

households receiving loans within the past two years, 22 were

female head of household/not elderly, 19 were female head of

household/elderly, 7 were elderly/not female head of

household and 14 were classified as ``other''. For example,

Kevin and Kelly Sorlien are a young couple with three

children of their own. In addition, the Sorlien's also have

custody of Kelly's teenage sister and are responsible for her

care. Mr. Sorlien works full-time and Mrs. Sorlien takes care

of the children and has picked up a part-time job to help

support the family. The Sorlien's needed some improvements

done to their home and Mrs. Sorlien says they couldn't afford

to do them on their own. They applied for a rehabilitation

loan through the City because she says that, ``. . . the

interest rates were lower with the City's loan . . .'' than

they would have been able to get had they gone elsewhere for

a loan. With the City's loan, the Sorlien's were able to get

a new roof and siding and updates elsewhere in the home. Mrs.

Sorlien says that she, ``. . . loves the way my house turned

out . . .'' and was happy that the City was able to make this

program available to her family.

Southfield Home Improvement Program (SHIP) CDBG Funded Residential

Rehabilitation Program

The City of Southfield, over the past 32 years, has spent

close to $7,000,000 of the Community Development Block Grant

(CDBG) funding on the Southfield Home Improvement Program

(SHIP). Since 1975, SHIP has assisted over 930 households.

The program is designed to assist low and moderate income

homeowners afford structural repairs to their home who may

not otherwise qualify for a bank loan.

The loans we give range from small emergency repairs to

large scale structural problems. Although the average loan

amount is $15,000 it is not unusual to have a $25,000 loan on

one property which includes roof repair, plumbing, electrical

and new windows. The clients of SHIP range in income from

extremely low; those on fixed incomes due to age or

disability; and those families with moderate incomes who are

not classified as poverty stricken but don't have sufficient

income for amenities outside of basic living necessities.

Sherry Crammer is a 59 year old widow of 16 years to a

Detroit police officer and has lived in her Southfield home

for 30 years. Her yearly income is $23,868 comprised

primarily of her husband's pension. As a result of poor

health issues, the homeowner incurred high medical bills and

credit card balances forcing her into bankruptcy. In the

early part of January 2006, the homeowner smelled a slight

burning odor coming from her furnace. Upon calling the gas

company, they red tagged the furnace after showing her the

plastic coating on the wires that were melting. The act of

`red tagging' means that the gas appliance is determined to

be a hazard and is not to be used until repaired or replaced.

The call from the homeowner was received by SHIP on a late

Friday afternoon. At 5 p.m. the Housing Inspector went to her

home to examine the crisis and to assist with the application

process. During this initial contact it was learned that she

had an unused wall space heater in a spare bedroom. The

Housing Inspector, with the help of some caring neighbors was

able to get the space heater running until a contractor quote

could be finalized that following Monday and a new furnace

installed. The homeowner was very grateful for all of the

personal attention and service. Before assistance from SHIP,

Mrs. Crammer had contemplated moving into a senior citizen

apartment. SHIP afforded her the opportunity to continue

living in the home she loved.

The Andersons are a young couple who had in the past 2

years gotten married, bought a home in Southfield and started

their own landscaping business. The business was doing okay,

but there wasn't any extra money, most of the profits went

back into the business. The home needed a new roof as well

as electrical and plumbing repairs. With SHIP, the couple

was able to get a 3 percent interest loan that wouldn't

require monthly payments which would have added another

strain to their already tight budget. They will be able to

defer payment of the loan until the sale of their house.

Without a program like SHIP being available this couple

would probably not have qualified for a conventional loan

and may have been the target of predatory lenders.

Mr. and Mrs. Willie Hunter are a family of seven. Their

income consists of a pension, supplemental security insurance

and child support. They just purchased their house a little

over a year ago and needed to make some improvements.

However, they quickly found out the house had more extensive

problems then their budget would permit them to fix,

including a leaking roof. In addition, while the Hunters were

in the process of replacing the kitchen floor, they

discovered under the linoleum and deteriorated subfloor that

they had structural floor framing problems. Application to

the Southfield Home Improvement Program addressed both of

these major issues for the Hunters. They are now able to sit

all together at the kitchen table to enjoy their meals under

a roof that doesn't leak.

The focus of SHIP is ``make a difference in the life of a

family one house at a time''. Total home inspections are

performed to identify housing code violations as well as

abate any lead based paint hazards. The entire process is

coordinated by the equivalent of 1\1/2\ staff positions.

Staff prepares the specifications, reviews bids, communicates

with contractors and oversees the actual rehab work in

addition to processing the completed loan documents and

tracking an average of 800 active loans. The goal is to

complete 20-25 loans per year; making a difference one house

at a time.

Note: Names have been changed to protect the privacy of

program participants.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Majority's budget.

We need to acknowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong with the budgetary policies the Republican Leadership has pursued for the last 5 years. It is time for a little honesty about where these policies are taking this country. Since 2001, the Federal Government has posted record budget deficits year after year.

During the 1990s, Democrats and Republicans worked together with the Clinton Administration to cut the red ink and balance the budget. For the first time in many years, we balanced the budget in 1998. We kept it balanced in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Indeed, we ran budget surpluses during those years and, for the first time in a generation, actually began to pay down the national debt.

Since the Bush Administration took office in 2001, we've swung from balanced budgets to massive annual budget deficits. In 2002--the year after the Congress adopted the Administration's tax policies--the Federal Government posted a $128 billion deficit. In 2003, the deficit rose to $378 billion. In 2004, the deficit soared to an all-time high of $412 billion. In 2005, the deficit was $318 billion.

As bad as these deficits are, they do not tell the whole story, since these figures do not include the money the Federal Government borrows from Social Security and Medicare trust funds each year. In 2005 alone, the Federal Government borrowed nearly $175 billion from the trust funds, and we're on course to borrow even more this year.

We cannot continue on the course we're on. It is wrong for this Congress and this President to--keep borrowing half a trillion dollars each and every year and then pass this debt along to our children. It is wrong for Congress and the President to keep borrowing more and more from foreigners to fund tax cuts for the very wealthy. China alone owns more than $818 billion of our debt.

The Majority's budget simply digs the deficit hole deeper. The Republican budget proposes a $348 billion deficit for 2007. If you add in the borrowing from Social Security and Medicare--money that, by law, must be repaid--the total deficit for 2007 soars to $543 billion. The hard truth is that under the Majority's budget, the Federal budget never comes into balance. The tide of red ink rises forever. This policy is unsustainable and morally indefensible.

Tucked away in this budget is a provision to raise the government's borrowing limit another $653 billion. This would be on top of the $3 trillion in debt limit increases already approved since President Bush took office. At the very least, there should be a straight up-or-down vote on a debt limit of this magnitude, but evidently the plan is to try to sneak this through.

The Majority's budget also contains irresponsible cuts in critical domestic programs. In this regard, the Majority has mirrored the Bush Administration's budget, which included deep cuts in education, critical medical research, environmental protection, veterans' health care, to name only a few areas. There has been an attempt tonight to place a fig leaf over some of these cuts with a vague half promise of perhaps adding an additional $7.1 billion for domestic programs later. All this fig leaf does is acknowledge that the funding shortfall exists in the Republican budget without taking any action to actually address it.

I will vote for the Democratic budget substitute offered by Representative Spratt. The Spratt budget pays down the deficits over the next 5 years and achieves balance in 2012. We restore fiscal discipline by bringing back the pay-as-you-go budgeting rules and we force a degree of accountability by requiring the House to take a separate up-or-down vote on measures to increase the national debt limit. In addition, the Democratic budget alternative provides $150 billion for future tax cuts, and requires that any further tax cuts meet the pay-as-you-go rules. Lastly, our budget alternative rejects yet another round of spending cuts to key domestic programs that have been cut repeatedly in recent years.

The choice before the House could not be more clear. We can vote to continue the failed economic policies of the last 5 years--policies that have resulted in massive annual deficits. Or we can say $3 trillion of debt and borrowing over 5 years is enough and vote for the Spratt budget alternative that pays down these deficits and balances the budget.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for Representative Spratt's budget.

Mr. Speaker, two quick comments.

Mr. Thomas, when you say that the people taken off the rolls a few years ago do not pay any taxes--you did, twice you said that.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. I hope in the future Republicans who keep on saying they do not pay taxes will not say that anymore.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Right, and they continue to pay all kinds of taxes, and indeed they are paying taxes compared to what very wealthy people are not overall paying.

Let me just finish.

Look, another point, we have voted, we Democrats, two or three times on the AMT. We voted two or three times. You are Johnnie-Come-Latelys. So now what you say is, vote for a bill that has that in it, but has these provisions on dividend and capital gains.

As Mr. Stark said, essentially you are bringing a tax bill here that has caviar for the very wealthy and mostly crumbs for most everybody else. That is what you are doing, and the chart shows it: a household, 50- to 75,000, $110; a household from $500,000 to $1 million, $5,500; and more than $1 million, $41,000.

I read in an editorial a few days ago in the Post, ``While the income of the families in the middle fifth of society has grown 12 percent since 1980, the income of the top 10 percent has grown 67 percent, and the income of the top 1 percent has more than doubled. In short, the rich have grown a whole lot richer.''

So what you are doing here is giving this immense tax break to a relatively few very wealthy people, and you are combining it tomorrow with a budget bill, according to your own language, and I quote, ``the debt limit will be increased from $8.965 trillion to $9.618 trillion in an increase of $653 billion'' under your proposal.

So you are saying give the very wealthy, making $1 million or more, 45 percent of this tax bill, while you are increasing tomorrow the national debt by over $653 billion.

If your great tax policies have brought such great economic growth, why is the debt limit being raised $653 billion?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of H.R. 1499. This bill is actively supported by my Democratic colleagues. On May 23, 2005, this bill passed the House under suspension of the rules by voice vote. The bill was referred to the Senate and was approved with an amendment to change the effective date. Because of the later effective date as passed by the Senate, the bill is before us again today merely to incorporate a technical change. This change would indeed ensure that our service men and women can make eligible contributions for previous tax years, 2004 and 2005, for which the deadline has passed, but years for which they were eligible to make these contributions.

We acknowledge fully the work of our military personnel who continue to perform so ably for our Nation. We honor their bravery and their sacrifice. Therefore, it goes without saying that we endorse this effort by the Congress to make it possible for these men and women to take advantage of every tax benefit that is available to them, including saving for their retirement.

H.R. 1499, as my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Johnson, has said, would allow our service men and women to treat their compensation received while serving in combat as taxable income in order to help them meet the income eligibility requirement for making contributions to an individual retirement account.

At a recent hearing of our committee, two of our five witnesses highlighted the large shortfall in retirement savings many of our workers in this country face. I am sure that many members of the military fall within this group. This bill is a small step in the right direction of closing that gap.

Other larger steps need to be taken. For example, Democratic Members of this Congress are hopeful that we can work with our Republican colleagues to preserve another tax benefit that may be of even greater help to many military families. A provision in current law would permit military families to treat combat pay as taxable compensation for purposes of claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit. This provision, though, is set to expire at the end of this year.

The EITC is a refundable credit many low- and middle-income taxpayers can claim when they file their Federal tax returns. Eligible families may claim a portion of their credit ratably during the year. The EITC helps to relieve the Federal tax burden on many families who are working full-time, yet find themselves at or below the poverty level.

We had hoped that this provision could be included as part of the bill before us today to further help military families. However, we were assured that this provision will be taken up later in the year, and we will continue to press for the extension of this provision before it expires.

Also let me finish by expressing my hope and the hope of so many on my side of the aisle that this Congress and the administration will meet their responsibilities to our veterans on health, on re- employment, and on so many other major needs of those in the military and the veterans of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, Mr. Johnson, therefore anticipating your remarks, and your remarks indeed reflect your service to this country, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday evening, I was honored to join Southeast Michigan's Ukrainian American Community in remembrance of a terrible tragedy: the Chernobyl nuclear disaster on April 26th, 1986.

Here in Washington, the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus organized a number of events last week to ensure that Congress adequately remembered this solemn anniversary. Through all of these events, and at the commemoration I attended in Michigan, there was a consensus that as we remember those victims of Chernobyl who lost their lives, we must continue, and indeed strengthen, our efforts to help those who are still living with its consequences.

To that end, I ask that a statement from the Ukrainian American Community in Michigan be placed in the Record. It calls on us all to do our part in standing with the Ukrainian people to address the consequences of this disaster that so many still struggle with 20 years later.

Appeal: to the Members of the Michigan Delegation to the U.S. Congress on the Occasion of the Solemn 20th Anniversary of the Nuclear Disaster

at Chernobyl, Ukraine

The Ukrainian American community, gathered at St.

Josaphat's Ukrainian Catholic Church in Warren, Michigan, on

Friday, April 28, 2006 in solemn commemoration of the 20th

Anniversary of the Nuclear Disaster at Chernobyl, Ukraine,

recommends to the Michigan Delegation to the United States

Congress the Testimony of H.E. Oleh Shamshur, Ambassador of

Ukraine to the United States, before the Commission on

Security and Cooperation in Europe and urges the members of

the Delegation to assist in addressing the urgent problems

noted in Ambassador Shamshur's testimony, excerpted below:

``Chernobyl was not only a ``maximum credible accident''

and the greatest man-made technological disaster. There is

much more about Chernobyl catastrophe: this has become a

frightening reminder of the awesome human cost--measured in

lives and life-threatening health problems--of the lack of

freedom, democratic procedures, civic control and

transparency.

The plain and awful fact is that the biggest nuclear

catastrophe in human history was kept secret from ordinary

citizens, who were massively exposed to radiation exceeding

the maximum acceptable level by hundred times.

During the critical period after explosion, while

evacuating the local population from direct neighborhood of

the nuclear power station, the Soviet government let millions

of people in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia conduct their daily

life as usual--unaware, unwarned, unprotected. On May 1st,

four days after the disaster, people in Kyiv and dozens of

other cities were urged to go outdoors to celebrate May Day,

an official holiday in the Soviet Union. In those moments

when radioactive cloud was reaching Sweden, when West

Europeans were called to restrain from buying fruit and

letting children play outside, in Ukraine parents carried

their kids to the festivities. It was only days later, that

people of Ukraine came to know the full extent of what had

happened to them, their families, their land. By early May

millions of people, including children, received unthinkable

amounts of radiation as the volume of radioactive materials

released into atmosphere exceeded Hiroshima by 400 times.

Experts and humankind are yet to comprehend and assess the

full scope of the hazardous consequences of the nuclear

devastation, including continuous exposure to radiation of

such magnitude. About 5 million people were directly affected

by explosion. As of January 2006, 2.6 million Ukrainians have

had the status of those affected by consequences of the

Chernobyl accident. Over 570 thousand children officially

registered as affected by the disaster continue to live in

Ukraine. 6,769 children died of horrible diseases caused by

the calamity including thyroid and other cancers. Tens

thousand square kilometers of once fertile and flourishing

land remain radiation-polluted, as well as 2,218 Ukrainian

townships and settlements.

The international community should be aware that the period

of so-called half-life of radioactive strontium released into

atmosphere in 1986 is 90 years. Therefore however scaring it

might sound, the full story has not been told yet. The

gravest implications of the catastrophe might be still ahead

for Ukraine and other nations. We should be well prepared to

face this eventuality.

The price Ukraine has paid for the lies, hypocrisy and

greed of the Soviet regime epitomized by Chornobyl and its

aftermath has been enormous. What we need now is assistance

in addressing two very concrete and urgent problems.

Building a new reliable Shelter. Taking this opportunity I

am asking the distinguished members of the Commission to

weigh in their political authority to call upon all G8

members and other countries concerned to follow the example

of the U.S. Government and to make adequate financial

contributions making possible the erection of the Shelter-2.

The construction costs are estimated at slightly over 1

billion USD representing rather modest amount of money

compared to the damages which 200 tons of highly radioactive

waste still glowing underneath the corroded Shelter-1 might

incur. We also urge all the signatories of the Ottawa

Memorandum to honor their obligations concerning compensation

of the losses suffered by Ukraine due to the decommissioning

of the Chernobyl NPS.

Meeting the health needs of the innocent children,

suffering from hazardous effects of Chornobyl. We deeply

appreciate the work done in this respect by the members of

the U.S. Congress, such as Co-Chairman Chris Smith and

Representative Lincoln Diaz-Ballard. It was largely due to

Mr. Diaz-Ballard's efforts that on April 20th one of the

biggest humanitarian airlifts organized by the Children of

Chornobyl Fund arrived in Ukraine for the benefit of

Chornobyl-affected children. I know that more projects are in

preparation and I'm deeply thankful for them to our American

partners.''

Ambassador Shamshur concludes with the following words,

words which the Ukrainian American community in Michigan and,

we trust, our elected officials, fully share and support.

`` I strongly believe that our two countries--Ukraine and

the United States--will stand united in facing the challenges

and preventing any new human tragedies that might be caused

by the consequences of the disaster that happened twenty

years ago, but remains so present in our lives.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.

The American people are losing their faith in the integrity of Congress. Today we had a real opportunity to curb the influence of the special interests and lobbyists, and to disburse the cloud of corruption hanging over this Congress as a result of the improprieties of a small minority who have disgraced its good name.

Yet this watered-down attempt at reform falls far short of what we need to do to restore confidence in the legislative process. This bill is reform in name only. Under this bill companies could continue to fly members in their corporate jets at discount rates. Members could continue to accept lobbying jobs shortly after drafting and advocating for industry- friendly legislation. Members could influence private employment decisions with the threat of taking or withholding official actions. And special interest provisions could continue to be slipped into legislation at the eleventh hour. Instead of developing a real policy to govern gifts and meals, this legislation defers that decision until after the elections in November. This bill also postpones adoption of a clear policy regarding special interest and lobbyist- sponsored private travel.

The bill before the House is not going to fool anyone. Across the country, newspapers are blasting the GOP lobbying reform bill for the farce that it is.

The Washington Post has called it ``a watered-down sham that would provide little in the way of accountability or transparency.'' ``Congress still doesn't get it,'' said USA Today. The New York Times writes ``It's hard to believe that members of Congress mindful of voters'' diminishing respect would attempt such an election-year con.'' And the Houston Chronicle asks ``How many more members of Congress, their aides and lobbyists have to be convicted of fraud, bribery and abuse of voters' trust before legislators get the message that the public is serious about ethics reform?''

The Democratic reform plan, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which I have cosponsored, would address each of these serious inadequacies, while further strengthening lobbyist disclosure requirements to shine some light into the relationship between campaign donors, lobbyists and Members of Congress.

Yet, in what has become a standard abuse of House Rules, Democrats were denied the opportunity to debate a number of substantive amendments seeking to improve and strengthen many components of the bill. Consideration of substitute legislation was blocked as well, denying Members the chance to vote on the actual reforms included in the Democratic Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.

The American people have seen the impacts resulting from the lax policies of this Republican Congress in many ways. Spiraling prescription drug costs, the skyrocketing cost of gasoline, waste, fraud and no-bid contracts in the Gulf Coast and Iraq, are all cases where a more open legislative process with reasonable oversight could have saved consumers thousands.

While this Republican Leadership may be perfectly content in perpetuating a clearly flawed status quo, sticking to business as usual regardless of the multiplying and increasingly brazen cases of misconduct, and promising more reform at some indefinite date in the future, I know the American people both demand and deserve a real response. This is simply a smoke screen by Members of the Majority to delay real action right here and right now.

Today Member after Member from the Republican Party came to the House floor not to extol the virtues of this legislation but to assure their colleagues that this was just a compromise, and that more would be done in conference and in the future. The American people do not want a compromise. They don't want to hear any more false promises of future action. The continuing cost of inaction has resulted in the loss of the confidence of the American people.

I will vote against this legislation today and support the Democratic motion to recommit to send the bill back to Committee with instructions to immediately report the measure back to the House with the text of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion by Representative Larson that calls for rolling back $5.4 billion in unjustified tax subsidies and loopholes for the oil industry. The Senate has voted to close these loopholes, and the House should do the same. We are here to represent the interests of American consumers, not the interests of the oil companies.

The average U.S. price for self-serve regular gas is $2.91 a gallon, or nearly 70 cents higher than it was at this time last year. This is the average cost. In many areas, the price of a gallon of gas is much higher. Some of this is due to higher oil prices and strong demand for petroleum, but some of the price hikes we are seeing simply cannot be explained away by supply and demand.

At the same time that consumers are facing pain at the pump, the oil companies are raking in record profits. Last week, the world's largest oil company, Exxon Mobil Corp., announced first-quarter profits of $8.4 billion, up 7 percent from a year ago. This gave Exxon the fifth- highest quarterly profits ever recorded by a publicly-traded company. Marathon Oil's profits more than doubled in the first quarter to $784 million. ConocoPhillips, the Nation's third-largest oil and gas producer, reported last week that its first quarter profit rose 13 percent. All told, the country's three largest U.S. petroleum companies posted combined first-quarter income of almost $16 billion, an increase of 17 percent from the year before.

Further, Exxon Mobil recently was able to give its former CEO one of the most generous retirement packages in history: nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks. The people I represent simply do not understand how the energy companies can keep posting sky-high profits, award $400 million golden parachutes to their executives, and keep raising the price of gasoline.

The very least Congress can do is to close some of the unjustified loopholes in the tax code that unfairly benefit big oil companies. Americans are watching what we are doing here. I am sure they noticed a plan floated by Senate Republicans last Friday to give consumers a $100 rebate check, paid for by a tax change on oil company inventory accounting. For most people, that would come out to about two or three tanks of gas. Consumers want us to fix the problem, not buy them off with a $100 check. But what's interesting here is how the proponents of the rebate plan quickly shelved their proposal just a few days later after oil companies waged an intense lobbying effort to block the closure of the inventory accounting loophole. This speaks volumes about who the Republican leaders of Congress listen to.

The motion before the House would roll back $5.4 billion over 10 years in tax subsidies and loopholes for the oil industry. That comes out to about $135 million a quarter, which comes out to be about 1.6 percent of Exxon's first-quarter earnings in 2006.

So there is a clear choice before the House today. We can stand with consumers who are struggling with these sky-high gas prices, or we can stand with the oil companies that are posting some of the highest profits in the history of the world.

Mr. Speaker, this vote is going to be scored by the American people, and it is going to speak volumes about whether people just talk or whether they act. We know what is happening at the gas pump. The average price is $2.92. A gallon of gas today is 71 cents more than a year ago.

There were two announcements today on profits: Conoco, quarterly up 13 percent; Valero Energy Corporation, the Nation's biggest independent oil refiner, said Tuesday its first quarter profit jumped 60 percent as revenues surged from higher product margins and greater refining volume.

Exxon, as we know, decided to give a $60 million compensation package and a $98 million pension payout to its former CEO, but can't do anything about these sky-high prices.

Well, what is before us? Yesterday the President said, ``Record oil prices and large cash flows also mean that Congress has got to understand that these energy companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks.'' That is exactly what these provisions are.

Don't obscure and talk about windfall profit taxes. We will talk about that some other day. These are three provisions that passed the Senate that clearly are a tax break, a loophole, and closing it would generate $5 billion.

Mr. McDermott has quoted the headline from The Washington Post. ``GOP,'' that means the House GOP, ``blocks measures boosting taxes on oil company profits. Provisions passed by the Senate would raise about $5 billion.'' So there is a clear choice today.

I did look at the report on contributions to candidates by the oil and gas

industry in this cycle. The top 20 are all Republicans. People are going to have to decide what interests they are going to support.

Mr. McCrery, you said ``tie the hands.'' There are 100 provisions. This is three plus one. Tie the hands? No. What we are trying to do is to speak up for the people of this country.

I close with this: you always talk about one aspect in terms of capital gains and dividends. What you don't say is that every analysis we have seen indicates that this extension that you are insisting on, about 40 to 50 percent, and some say a little more than 50 percent, would go to people making over $1 million a year.

So tomorrow when people vote, they are going to have a clear choice. It is going to be the vast majority of the American people who go to the gas pump and know how much they are paying and are hurting; or people for whom that increase to three bucks a gallon and more doesn't really matter.

So, as I said at the beginning, I don't know which interest group is going to score this. I know how the American people are going to score this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in commemorating the 91st annual observance of the Armenian Genocide.

Ninety-one years ago, there began a vast human tragedy with the execution of some 300 Armenian leaders, professionals and intellectuals. Over the next eight years, a brutal campaign of genocide against the Armenian people was carried out in the Ottoman Empire, leading to the deaths of over 1.5 million people and the deporting of another 500,000.

Decade after decade there has been a failure to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. Today, while there is increased pressure on Turkey to acknowledge the facts of history, and some new voices have been raised to urge this acknowledgement, there remain efforts to evade this dark chapter in human history, as evidenced by a book recently sent to Congressional offices.

So this is the time for all of us who have been joining in the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide to continue to speak out. It is vital and urgent for us to insist that there be a universal participation in remembering the victims. We must say, to those who hesitate, our humanity can settle for nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important legislation, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act.

The people of this troubled region have experienced almost unimaginable suffering. As many as 400,000 people have already lost their lives and two million more have been forced from their homes. The House of Representatives, along with the Senate and the Administration, have long acknowledged that the crimes being committed in Darfur amount to genocide.

Last month the House voted to provide $271 million for peacekeeping in Darfur and another $228 million in humanitarian aid as part of the Supplemental Appropriations bill. This funding is a welcome and necessary step in the right direction. Today we take another step with the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act.

This legislation directs the President to take a number of steps to stop the genocide in Darfur. This includes providing assistance to an expanded African Union force in Darfur, advocating a NATO role in stopping the violence, pushing for an additional United Nations Security Council Resolution regarding Darfur, and freezing the assets of those responsible for acts of genocide.

I am pleased that this legislation emphasizes a multilateral approach. The entire international community has a responsibility to work together to stop these crimes against humanity, and the bill before us makes clear that we expect the President to work with our allies to stop the killing in Darfur.

The United States and the international community must do far more to break the cycle of violence and hunger that grips Darfur. In a word, we must put real resources and diplomacy into solving the problem. This legislation advances these goals, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, since January 2001, the United States has lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs. As a result, manufacturing states have seven of the ten highest unemployment rates in the country. But manufacturing affects us all, not just those workers who are directly engaged in manufacturing, because manufacturing has the largest employment ``ripple effect'' of any U.S. industry. During President Clinton's administration, when manufacturing was growing and thriving, private sector job growth was 22 percent. Under the current administration, it's an anemic 2.4 percent. Manufacturing is also responsible for nearly two-thirds of all private sector research and development.

Manufacturing in the United States faces serious challenges in the global marketplace, as our manufacturers compete with companies who get the benefit of a healthy workforce without having to shoulder the rising cost of health care, deal with skyrocketing energy costs, and often face an unlevel playing field when they sell their goods. Instead of standing up for manufacturing and the men and women it employs, the Bush administration continues to sit on its hands as the manufacturing jobs crisis worsens. The workers who are harmed by that inaction deserve to be heard. Tonight, I'd like to read testimony several Michigan workers submitted to us about how the manufacturing jobs crisis is affecting them.

Sherry Lowell of Grand Blanc, MI writes:

``For the past 27 years, I have worked as a Journeyman

Toolmaker for GM/Delphi in Flint, MI. My marvelous experience

as a tradesman began when I was 30 years old. At the Flint

East site, I was the 7th female to graduate as a tradesman. .

. .

``For almost three decades, I believed that I was an

integral part of the team with the goal of producing products

with first time quality at a profit. The wages that I earned

were appreciated and getting dirty and greasy were part and

parcel of my job as a toolmaker. I have fulfilled my promise

to the corporation for the past 27 years to faithfully come

to work, work hard at work despite cold (45 degrees) and hot

(103 degrees) and dirty environments, and buy GM/AC products.

``The promise of a defined-benefit pension was very

important to me. Furthermore, financial planning for my old

age has been threatened by corporate raiders of pension funds

and the possibility of Social Security benefits ceasing. I

would appreciate Congressional efforts to support the men and

women of manufacturing skilled trades and production in

protecting the pensions they were promised.''

Patricia Neal of Clinton Township, MI writes:

``I have been a UAW member and a GM employee for 28 years.

I live in Clinton Township, MI. At some point in time nearly

every UAW represented auto worker in America has had to hear,

that we are `over paid and under worked'. Every headline that

screams out to the public, pointing a scolding finger at UAW

represented auto workers, is not only demoralizing and

degrading it is downright deceiving. . . .

``We, UAW workers, make the products put before us, we

drive the fork trucks, we stand on the steel plated or

concrete floors, we tighten the nuts and bolts, we handle the

machines, we breath the toxic fumes but we do not make the

decisions. We do the work. We want to see GM make a profit,

we want GM healthy.''

Charles McCray of Southgate, MI writes:

``I am a 54 year old retired hourly worker after 30 years

of service. I have worked hard for GM and the UAW. I have

always purchased GM products over the years. I want GM to

keep their promise to me with the contract I signed when I

retired. I retired and gave up my position to another worker

to pay taxes and make a good wage.

``With the possible problem at GM if I were to lose any pay

what-so-ever I'd be in a tight spot. Where does all the money

come from to even bury me when the time comes. We have never

lived beyond our means at all. We have been able to pay for

college for our 2 children, have a small home paid for. There

is a small savings for future use after 62 years of age. With

our monthly retirement we do OK but most do not. I have

already gone out and have taken another job just because I am

not sure what is going to happen at GM.''

I hope President Bush and my colleagues in the House will hear these workers and the millions like them, and will begin work on a real agenda to preserve and expand our manufacturing sector and the quality products and jobs it produces.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to Mr. English, if you are serious about the AMT, you would vote for this motion to instruct. You can join any caucus you want. It is what happens on the floor that matters.

You talk about the path to the balanced budget. The Republican path to a balanced budget is more deficits, and your notion is more deficits will help growth and eventually we will grow out of the deficit. The trouble is, it isn't working.

When you talk about growth figures, you don't mention that for the typical family in this country, there hasn't been an increase in income. Median income in this country has essentially been flat these last years.

You say if you vote for the motion to instruct it leads to a tax increase. That makes no sense at all. The present provision lasts through 2008. What you are doing is extending it several years from now.

Why does Mr. Cardin come here again? How many times have we raised this issue? The main reason we bring this is because you distort the facts when you make your arguments. Pure distortion. That was true the last time we debated this.

I read the New York Times article of just this last Wednesday that picks up the pure distortions by the Republicans. I think you have repeated them again. Essentially what was said last time in defense of your position was this: ``Nearly 60 percent of the taxpayers with incomes less than $100,000 had income from capital gains and dividends.'' The New York Times story goes on to say, ``IRS data show that among the 90 percent of all taxpayers who made less than $100,000, dividend tax reductions benefited just one in seven and capital gains reductions one in 20.'' So you either get your distortions out of thin air or from some other source.

You try to say that this is a matter of a tax benefit mostly from the non-wealthy. I just want to read again from the New York Times article, and this traces the 2003 investment income cuts.

The investing income cuts. And here is what happened: The average tax cut for people making less than $50,000 was $10. For people making $50 to $100,000, the average tax cut--this is again in investment income-- was $68. For the family $100,000 to $200,000, the average tax cut was $268. For someone making $200,000 to $500,000, $1,489. For those $500,000 to $1 million, $5,491. For those making $1 million to $10 million, $25,450. And, again, in contrast to $10 for less than $50,000 and $68 for $50,000 to 100,000. On those who are making $10 million or more, the average cut is $497,463.

The conclusion in this article, I think not refuted, is that the top one-tenth of 1 percent of taxpayers got 43 percent of the benefit. And you have the gall to come here and talk about these two tax cuts or decreases benefiting the majority of the American people. That is not true.

Now, another myth that you perpetuated is that more people will really benefit from this change in investment income taxation than if we act on AMT. Mr. Cardin has talked about this, we have talked about this before, we have heard your mythology in the Ways and Means committee from the very beginning. There are going to be 17 million people or more affected by the AMT if we do not act compared to several million now. And you throw your lot in with the millionaires instead of people who are in middle income situations. That is whom you are benefiting, basically.

So that is why we come forth here. You distort the record. We want to tell the truth to the American people. Whose side are the Republicans on? It is the millionaires. I think it is fine if people make a million bucks, but they do not need a tax cut. What is needed is some actual civility and sanity when it comes to the deep deficits here, and also some honesty with the American taxpayer, and not helping a very few and hurting the very many. That is what you are doing.

That is why Mr. Cardin is coming forth once again, once again, and we are putting you to the test. If you vote wrong today, expect to hear from the American people tomorrow and tomorrow and in November.